House Education Bills: Partisan Volleying Continues

Washington--An unusual partisan battle in the House Education and
Labor Committee escalated last week, as the panel's Democrats and
Republicans and Secretary of Education Lauro F. Cavazos traded barbs at
a hearing on President Bush's education bill and the Democrats'
alternative.

The rhetorical brawl--much of which focused on which side is most
guilty of partisanship--ended when Mr. Cavazos left to keep another
appointment and the Republicans stood as a group and walked out.

Representative Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania, the committee's
ranking Republican, said that if the Democrats "want help from this
side to put something together, we'll be there."

Democratic Representatives Augustus F. Hawkins of California, the
panel's chairman, and William D. Ford of Michigan, who is expected to
succeed Mr. Hawkins when he retires at the end of the session, also
expressed a willingness to cooperate.

But the animosity was palpable to observers, and the future of the
legislation is unclear.

The Democrats can seek a compromise or push their bill through the
committee on party-line votes. That could lead to the House's first
partisan floor fight on education issues in many years, and complicate
the subsequent House-Senate conference.

The Senate approved an amended version of the President's bill, S
695, on Feb. 7. While it contains Democratic amendments and additions,
it is closer to the original proposal than the House Democrats'
alternative, HR 4379.

The Senate has also passed a literacy bill similar to the literacy
provisions in HR 4379, but has not yet acted on teacher training and
mathematics and science education, which are also addressed in the
omnibus House bill. House aides acknowledged that senators might not
want an omnibus approach.

Republican aides said g.o.p. members would probably be willing to
negotiate, but stressed that the ball was now in the Democrats'
court.

Democratic aides disagreed, noting that it was the Republicans who
walked out. They said there has been no discussion of how to proceed,
and nothing is likely to happen soon, as the House began a two-week
recess last week, and panel members are likely to be tied up in
conferences on child care and vocational education.

The rift opened March 7, when Democrats moved to postpone action on
the President's bill, HR 1675, which was to be marked up by the
Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education.

Mr. Goodling and Mr. Hawkins had worked out amendments to the Bush
plan. But other Democrats objected during a caucus that delayed the
markup by 45 minutes, then voted for postponement. On March 26, Mr.
Hawkins introduced HR 4379, which includes some of Mr. Bush's proposals
and several Democratic proposals already pending before the
committee.

It would authorize $2 billion in 1991 for new programs and calls for
dramatic increases in spending on existing programs.

"Not much focus, not very comprehensive, not much for excellence,"
Mr. Goodling said at last week's subcommittee hearing.

"The pride of authorship" and Mr. Bush's popularity, he said,
"causes us to do all sorts of silly things."

Mr. Cavazos called HR 4379 "unrealistically expensive" and "a ploy
to sidetrack the President's bill," and said it was not a
"comprehensive response" to the national education goals adopted by the
President and the National Governors' Association, as the Democrats
claim.

Some of the new proposals have merit, but need further discussion,
he said. He complained about how the Bush proposals were trimmed,
contending that spending levels for some of them were reduced "for no
apparent reason except partisanship."

"Some people just have a difficult time giving the President any
credit for the efforts and leadership he has taken in improving and
restructuring our nation's schools," Mr. Cavazos said.

Mr. Hawkins said he and other Democrats were motivated not by
partisanship, but by concern that the Bush proposals--which include a
"Merit Schools" program, scholarships for high achievers, and awards
for outstanding teachers--would reward "elite" schools but shortchange
disadvantaged students.

Mr. Ford ridiculed provisions in the Bush bill that would authorize
funding for awards ceremonies, and argued that a proposal to fund
alternative-certification programs encouraged the hiring of unqualified
teachers.

"I've never heard anyone use the word 'partisan' so many times in a
presentation," Mr. Ford said, including former Secretary William J.
Bennett, who "set the standard for irritating members of this
committee."

"To suggest that after many years of working together this committee
has lost that because we don't agree with your rhetoric is a disservice
to your office, the President, and the children of this country," he
said.

Mr. Cavazos countered that he was "not advocating putting people who
are not qualified in the classroom," and was "not trying to be
partisan."

"I've been publicly criticized, criticized by the press, because
I've been too bipartisan," the Secretary said, throwing up his
hands.

When the merits of the two bills were finally discussed, a panel of
educators were almost unanimous in favoring the Democrats' plan,
applauding both the proposed increases for proven programs and the new
proposals, most of which had already been endorsed by education
groups.

Lawrence C. Patrick Jr., the Republican president of the Detroit
Board of Education, touted the Bush bill and said he was not familiar
with HR 4379.

Some witnesses supported inclusion of provisions that would
authorize funding for the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards and allow some school districts to receive waivers of some
federal regulations as an experiment.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.